Reply #100: You mistook a serious query [View All]

[galloglas]

as aggression. I am sorry. Reread my post to you and fail to see why. But, if you will just take me seriously, it should not matter.

I asked for you to cite some provision, section, whatever, simply because that is the way the bill can be put into view. I think perhaps my assertion that I am, in effect, an "industry insider" might have caught your attention.

My point is this. I am very well acquainted with the agenda of the insurance companies and know what they are doing, what they plan to do, what they want to do and what they will do.

You seemed focused on yourself and family. It seems that you believe that what is in the bill may affect you and that it will be beneficial. I simply asked you to point out where and why in order thgat we might determine if what you think will happen will actually be so.

I've read the bill (being from the industry, I had little choice) assumed that you (as most) had read the highlights given by the House members. Either way, this is not going to be a wishing/hoping situation.

You will either get what you want/wish, or you will "get had". My assumption is that most persons prefer to know if they are likely to get had. That was my reason for asking for specifics.

But to answer your question "why should I waste any more time discussing this with you, perhaps you should not. My 40+ years in that unsavory business may not be enough to sway your beliefs with any troubling truths.

Still and all, why would you insult me for wishing the industry top be divested of its stranglehold on Americans?